Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: fix kernel-doc for spi_nor::info

[<Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com>]

On Monday, April 20, 2020 12:20:48 PM EEST Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> Hi, Sergei,
> 
> On Friday, April 3, 2020 11:49:48 PM EEST Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the
> > content is safe
> > 
> > When adding the 'info' field to 'struct spi_nor', some acronyms were in
> > lower case and some in upper case and the JEDEC acronym mistyped -- fix
> > these issues.
> > 
> > Fixes: 46dde01f6bab ("mtd: spi-nor: add spi_nor_init() function")
> > Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>
> > 
> > ---
> > Changes in version 2:
> > - rebased to the 'spi-nor/next' branch of the MTD repo.
> > 
> >  include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h |    2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > Index: linux/include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux.orig/include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h
> > +++ linux/include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h
> > @@ -335,7 +335,7 @@ struct spi_nor_flash_parameter;
> > 
> >   * @bouncebuf:         bounce buffer used when the buffer passed by the
> >   MTD
> > 
> > *                      layer is not DMA-able
> > 
> >   * @bouncebuf_size:    size of the bounce buffer
> > 
> > - * @info:              spi-nor part JDEC MFR id and other info
> > + * @info:              SPI-NOR part JEDEC MFR ID and other info
> 
> There is an inconsistency in this file when referring to SPI NOR. It's
> either called SPI-NOR or "SPI NOR". While I don't have a preference whether
> to keep the "-" or not, I think we should be consistent across the file and

Probably it's better to have "SPI NOR" instead of "SPI-NOR".

> use just a format. So would you care to fix all the comments in spi-nor.h?
> 
> >   * @manufacturer:      spi-nor manufacturer
> 
> 		^ here's another problem.
> 
> Also, I think I would fix all these typos in a single patch, the fixes are
> trivial enough, without affecting functionality and I'm not sure it is worth
> backporting them. But again I don't have a strong opinion, so if you want
> to keep these in separate commits that's ok for me.
> 
BTW, the rest of the patches in this series look good. Let me know if you're 
going to resubmit and address the rest of the doc/comments issues in this 
file.

Cheers,
ta



______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/